In All-I the compression is done in each frame is restricted to that one frame. In IPB, the compression is done across frames, by taking advantage of parts of the image that do not change from frame to frame.

I think the only real advantage is that you can cut to whatever frame you want with All-I. With IPB, since any given frame might be reliant on information in a previous frame, you are somewhat restricted in this capacity. However since you are being less restrictive on the compression algorithm (with IPB), you might get more detail and less macro blocking.

In All-I the compression is done in each frame is restricted to that one frame. In IPB, the compression is done across frames, by taking advantage of parts of the image that do not change from frame to frame.

I think the only real advantage is that you can cut to whatever frame you want with All-I. With IPB, since any given frame might be reliant on information in a previous frame, you are somewhat restricted in this capacity. However since you are being less restrictive on the compression algorithm (with IPB), you might get more detail and less macro blocking.

Does this make sense?

I think IPB should be the default choice.

Interesting. I think I'll switch and shoot my next video with IPB, and give it a try.

Would this choice have any repercussions....say with editing the 'native' footage in FCPX or Adobe Premier? (IPB vs ALL-I)?

In All-I the compression is done in each frame is restricted to that one frame. In IPB, the compression is done across frames, by taking advantage of parts of the image that do not change from frame to frame.

I think the only real advantage is that you can cut to whatever frame you want with All-I. With IPB, since any given frame might be reliant on information in a previous frame, you are somewhat restricted in this capacity. However since you are being less restrictive on the compression algorithm (with IPB), you might get more detail and less macro blocking.

Hard drives are dirt cheap these days...and shouldn't be a limiting factor really. Heck, I saw a freakin' 4TB external drive from newegg the other day on sale for $139, no tax, free shipping.

Yeah but it does add up all the same, plus backing them up takes FOREVER! And they start cluttering up space too.If all-i delivered something noticeably better than sure, but as it is it seems like it just means buying 4x the HD for no particular reason (in a majority, but not all, cases). It will be interesting to see how things go in April when they put out the clean HDMI and we can see how ProRes recorders deal with it. Will that make it all worth the extra HDs and mess or not?

Hard drives are dirt cheap these days...and shouldn't be a limiting factor really. Heck, I saw a freakin' 4TB external drive from newegg the other day on sale for $139, no tax, free shipping.

Yeah but it does add up all the same, plus backing them up takes FOREVER! And they start cluttering up space too.If all-i delivered something noticeably better than sure, but as it is it seems like it just means buying 4x the HD for no particular reason (in a majority, but not all, cases). It will be interesting to see how things go in April when they put out the clean HDMI and we can see how ProRes recorders deal with it. Will that make it all worth the extra HDs and mess or not?

I'm anxious to see that myself....that firmware update should be coming out pretty soon, eh? April is just around the corner.

I'll wait and see what the reviews are like, and try to figure what recorder would be best, I was looking at the BM one...where you could use the SSD drives which would be fanstastic....

I gave a really long answer to this in the other thread. ALL-I is optimized for editing but the file sizes are larger. IPB uses a different compression method but the image quality is as good or better than ALL-I. If your system is fast enough to edit IPB files without conversion then shoot IPB, if not then shoot ALL-I.

If you are looking for better image quality out of ALL-I you aren't going to get it.

I have not been able to see any real difference in terms of video quality, but use ALL-I because I have read it is easier to edit with on your computer. Also (and I admit this is irrational) I use it because the file sizes are larger and larger files will in my opinion mean better quality video. I think it is irrational because I have not seen any difference in quality.

I gave a really long answer to this in the other thread. ALL-I is optimized for editing but the file sizes are larger. IPB uses a different compression method but the image quality is as good or better than ALL-I. If your system is fast enough to edit IPB files without conversion then shoot IPB, if not then shoot ALL-I.

If you are looking for better image quality out of ALL-I you aren't going to get it.

I've got a macbook pro (late 2011 model), and 16GB ram...I'll give it a try next time with IPB files and see how it goes.